Term VIII election: Director of Peacekeeping Operations

[Maniac]

Please vote on your preferred candidate. You have one vote and three days.

[Drogue]

If elected as DPO, I will, of course, do the wishes of the people, including polling on units to design and impliment, tactics and intelligence - something that has been lacking for a while (I can't remember the last DPO poll) I will also push for a peaceful agenda - we are the peacekeepers, if there is a peaceful solution that does not involve concessions, it is usually the preferable option. This is the realms of the DFA, but I will campaign for who I, and the people, believe we should be attacking, and who not. Moreover, my close links to the likely DFA makes it easier for us to co-ordinate our work than it would with my esteemed opponent, especially when it comes to intelligence work, in which I have much experience.

I believe fighting now lies strongly in airial combat and defence, and would like to make sure that any vulnerable bases receive one ECM/trance and one AAA/trance defender, to make safe against counter-attacks. I am well versed in how to attack with small numbers of troops, how I usually operate, so will be willing to allow Governors more freedom with their production, not forcing many military units upon them, as I feel I can defend, and wage wars if needs be, effectively with a much smaller force.

Yes, I am a pacifist, and oppose many wars, but that does not mean I am not a capable military commander. I favour having fewer troops for ideological reasons, but enough to defend, and attack where necessary, properly.

Sorry about the long-winded speech

If anyone has any questions, either general, stratigic or specific, I will gladly answer.

Vote Drogue That is, if you want to...

[DeathByTheSword]

the choice between a greeny and a (former?) FMer for DPO....HA that isnt that hard

[Cedayon]

GT's still an FM'er, as I recall, though that's not terribly important for this position...

No offense to Drogue, of course, but GT has already demonstrated prowess as commissioner in wielding our airforce to smash Yang's stuff... and it's his old job, so he knows what he's doing.

GT

[Drogue]

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword
the choice between a greeny and a (former?) FMer for DPO....HA that isnt that hard

Does our economic ideals really matter for the position? I do not want this to become about Green and FM, but about who you trust more, and think is better at, decisions regarding tactics, units, war and defense. The actual movement is mostly done by the Commisioner, however I plan to have a little more input with regards to tactics and movements if I am elected.

[Cedayon]

Originally posted by Drogue
I do not want this to become about Green and FM, but about who you trust more, and think is better at, decisions regarding tactics, units, war and defense.

Agreed. I trust you both to do the best job you can, but I'd go with GT on who would be better at it.

[Drogue]

Fair enough. Naturally I don't agree (or I wouldn't be running) but your choice.

[GeneralTacticus]

Well, i voted for myself, naturally...

Now, as to why you should vote for me and not Drogue:

Firstly, I largely agree with drogue on the importance of air power, and how we should equip our garrisons; I intend to exploit the potency of our air force by building our army around choppers, with probes to take out air defences and ground troops (probably armoured hovertanks, to increase speed) for occupying bases. Once we get the Space Elevator, I will also be making extensive use of drop troops for hitting far-off bases. My philosophy wiht regards to war against any faction is that we should hit them as hard as possible with choppers and take as many abses as possible as soon as possible, which will hopefully induce them to give in immediately. If they don't, we consolidate our gains, then repeat the process on another few abse,s and continue until they do give up.

PRobably the area in which I most strongly disagree with Drogue is the directino of our military policy - I am strongly inf avour of an offensive policy towards hostile factions, as our air force makes capturing bases very easy and they are far more likely to sue for peace if they have been demonstratably defeated. I will, however, be polling this issue, and will abide by the results even if I disagree with them.

And finally, on an issue which Drogue does not appear to have addressed: that of intelligence policy. I intend to have our probe teams largely back up our miltiary in wartime, by destroying vital enemy facilities and stealing technology if, by some freak of chance, an enemy acquires a tech which we lack; if there is any other opportunity to disrupt enemy plans without causing signifcant civilian casualties, I will take it. However, I do not beleive that we should go around using our probe teams against factions we ar enot at war with, except in emergencies when the risk of being caught is outweighed by the potential benefits.

Anyone have any questions?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Now, as to why you should vote for me and not Drogue:

Most of these seem to be things I agree on. As far as I can tell, the only few things we disagree on are that you would commit acts of intelligence aggression against allies if it was in our interests, and that you would push for war until capitulation, whereas I would me more inclined to accept peace with most factions, without conditions. I will poll for all of these, and take whatever the people wish, but these are my opinions. There may be slight differences in tactics, of which I intend to come up with a few idea san dpoll for which the people want, how they want to attack.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Firstly, I largely agree with drogue on the importance of air power, and how we should equip our garrisons; I intend to exploit the potency of our air force by building our army around choppers, with probes to take out air defences and ground troops (probably armoured hovertanks, to increase speed) for occupying bases. Once we get the Space Elevator, I will also be making extensive use of drop troops for hitting far-off bases. My philosophy wiht regards to war against any faction is that we should hit them as hard as possible with choppers and take as many abses as possible as soon as possible, which will hopefully induce them to give in immediately. If they don't, we consolidate our gains, then repeat the process on another few abse,s and continue until they do give up.

All of this I agree on. When at war, hitting hard and fast with air units (I usually use a few conventional missiles with the copters, but otherwise exactly the same) is the best method, with drop trops/hovertanks to take the bases.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
PRobably the area in which I most strongly disagree with Drogue is the directino of our military policy - I am strongly inf avour of an offensive policy towards hostile factions...

As am I. The way we differ is that if a hostile factions wishes to become a friendly faction, I would agree to it. But as I said, that is the DFAs job primarily. If we are at war, then I think taking as many bases as possible, as quickly as possible is the best way to go. However, we must also think about rebuilding, and so I will also would ask for some crawlers, to be transported with the best defensive troops available, to be en route towards any bases we are trying to take, so that as soon as we take the base, we can begin recovery and rebuilding it, as well as defending it. My aim is that as soon as we capture a base, it is given as much defense, aid and help as it needs to become a valuble and productive base quickly.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
...as our air force makes capturing bases very easy and they are far more likely to sue for peace if they have been demonstratably defeated. I will, however, be polling this issue, and will abide by the results even if I disagree with them.

We must consider casulaties however. The way we differ is that if a faction asks for peace, I am much mroe inclined to agree. Although since this is both DFA business, and must be polled, it makes little difference. If we are at war, I will try to win as quickly, cheaply, efficiently (with as few troops) and with the least life lost as possible. Prolonged sieges benefit no-one.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
And finally, on an issue which Drogue does not appear to have addressed: that of intelligence policy. I intend to have our probe teams largely back up our miltiary in wartime, by destroying vital enemy facilities and stealing technology if, by some freak of chance, an enemy acquires a tech which we lack; if there is any other opportunity to disrupt enemy plans without causing signifcant civilian casualties, I will take it. However, I do not beleive that we should go around using our probe teams against factions we ar enot at war with, except in emergencies when the risk of being caught is outweighed by the potential benefits.

I agree on all, although I go further on the last - We should not be stealing/commiting atrocities against our allies. Remember when weighing up the costs, we much include our conscience and not commit acts that are against our factions principles. I think probe teams are invaluble (especially cruiser probe teams for sea/border bases) and can be used to great effect to remove perimeter defenses and any other military facilities. However, I am against using them to remove citizen facilities, both for humanitarian reasons (destroying their schools, creches, etc. does not harm, their military, but does harm their innocent citizens) and because when we capture the base, it requires far less rebuilding. As per the polls I did as DEI, although I will repoll, I will campaign that we should never sabotage or steal from an ally. This is an act of war, and is not something that the UN Peacekeepers should be doing. I will bow to the will of the people, but I will ask strongly that we commit no atrocities ( to Lemmy) and no unprovoked acts of war.

and it's his old job, so he knows what he's doing.

That is true. although I would like to point out that the DPO as it is now is an amalgumation of the old DPO and the DEI (director of exploration and intelligence). I was the old DEI for 3 terms, and as such have much experience of the intelligence side of things.

Finally, if elected, I intend to resurrect the Command Nexus, and post preliminary orders, discuss tactics, and give a write-up of military victories/losses, actions, and generally military/intelligence information, so that we can all criticise and debate both past and future actions. As a Justice, I will also strictly adhere to the constitution, and so would not allow the declaring of war or peace without a mandate from the people during turnchat.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Cedayon
and it's his old job

Actually, is it? He was DFA for three terms, but I don't remember him being DPO, and his sig doesn't say anything I may be wrong though

[GeneralTacticus]

As far as I can tell, the only few things we disagree on are that you would commit acts of intelligence aggression against allies if it was in our interests,

No. When I say 'absolutely necessary', I mean it. I mean that I would do it in the very unlikely circumstance that our survival (or part of it) was under threat, for whatever reason. as this is unlikely to happen, I don't expect it to become an issue, but it's always nice to be ready.

and that you would push for war until capitulation, whereas I would me more inclined to accept peace with most factions, without conditions.

Considering the fact that most of the other factions ahve been either refusing to talk with us at all or demanding ridiculous sums for peace, I was using 'give in' in the context of 'actually agree to peace'.

All of this I agree on. When at war, hitting hard and fast with air units (I usually use a few conventional missiles with the copters, but otherwise exactly the same) is the best method, with drop trops/hovertanks to take the bases.

I hsve no intention whatsoever of using conventional missiles, as they are a huge waste of resources - one could get far more out of building a chopper or two for the same price.

As am I. The way we differ is that if a hostile factions wishes to become a friendly faction, I would agree to it. But as I said, that is the DFAs job primarily. If we are at war, then I think taking as many bases as possible, as quickly as possible is the best way to go. However, we must also think about rebuilding, and so I will also would ask for some crawlers, to be transported with the best defensive troops available, to be en route towards any bases we are trying to take, so that as soon as we take the base, we can begin recovery and rebuilding it, as well as defending it. My aim is that as soon as we capture a base, it is given as much defense, aid and help as it needs to become a valuble and productive base quickly.

Personally, I would argue that it would be better to put developemnt plans for most occupied bases on hold at elast until the end of the war; if we decide that they aren't worth keeping, we may decide to simply hand them back once peace has been concluded, assuming a palatable fate would await them once we did (i.e. no handing them back to undemocratic states).

We must consider casulaties however. The way we differ is that if a faction asks for peace, I am much mroe inclined to agree. Although since this is both DFA business, and must be polled, it makes little difference. If we are at war, I will try to win as quickly, cheaply, efficiently (with as few troops) and with the least life lost as possible. Prolonged sieges benefit no-one.

And prolonged seiges will not occur. If a base is demonstrating strong resistance, we simply take out their air defences using probes and flatten their garrison with choppers. The likelihood of serious losses is miniscule.

I agree on all, although I go further on the last - We should not be stealing/commiting atrocities against our allies. Remember when weighing up the costs, we much include our conscience and not commit acts that are against our factions principles. I think probe teams are invaluble (especially cruiser probe teams for sea/border bases) and can be used to great effect to remove perimeter defenses and any other military facilities. However, I am against using them to remove citizen facilities, both for humanitarian reasons (destroying their schools, creches, etc. does not harm, their military, but does harm their innocent citizens) and because when we capture the base, it requires far less rebuilding. As per the polls I did as DEI, although I will repoll, I will campaign that we should never sabotage or steal from an ally. This is an act of war, and is not something that the UN Peacekeepers should be doing. I will bow to the will of the people, but I will ask strongly that we commit no atrocities ( to Lemmy) and no unprovoked acts of war.

I have no intention of committing atrocities against anyone, and I don't intend to commit hostile probe actions against our allies. However, I would argue that if need be, we would be justified in launching actions against factions which were de facto enemies without being at war, and blaming it on another faction if necessary.

As to the issue of targetting civilian facilities - while it is often pointless and counterproductive, there are times when even shutting down civilian facilities may be a good idea. The elimination of an enemy Robotic Assembly Plant or Rec commons can be an invaluable help to the miltiary, by reducing production and stirring up rebellion respectively.

(and please note that since Rec Commons are destroyed when we occupy bases anyway, they're not exactly a big loss if we intend to capture the base)

That is true. although I would like to point out that the DPO as it is now is an amalgumation of the old DPO and the DEI (director of exploration and intelligence). I was the old DEI for 3 terms, and as such have much experience of the intelligence side of things.

Thing is, though, the intelligence side of things is not what this is mainly about - probe teams are either a seperate area entirely, or a subdivision of the military, depending on the situation. Being good at managing probes doesn't mean you would be a good DPO (although, of course, it would help, and is much better than being bad at managing probes)

Finally, if elected, I intend to resurrect the Command Nexus, and post preliminary orders, discuss tactics, and give a write-up of military victories/losses, actions, and generally military/intelligence information, so that we can all criticise and debate both past and future actions.

The same with me. I also intend to write up general palns for what our miltiary should do in the long term for deiscussion and comment.

As a Justice, I will also strictly adhere to the constitution, and so would not allow the declaring of war or peace without a mandate from the people during turnchat.

I would have thought that went without saying.

Actually, is it? He was DFA for three terms, but I don't remember him being DPO, and his sig doesn't say anything I may be wrong though

I was DPO in Term I, before you showed up.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
No. When I say 'absolutely necessary', I mean it. I mean that I would do it in the very unlikely circumstance that our survival (or part of it) was under threat, for whatever reason. as this is unlikely to happen, I don't expect it to become an issue, but it's always nice to be ready.

Well, you did not say absolutely necessary. I went on the

except in emergencies when the risk of being caught is outweighed by the potential benefits.

(my bold)
that you wrote. I don't think that will happen at all, so as you said, it is not an issue, but I will go with whatever the people want. However certain atrocities I would not want to commmit, even if it means our survival. If the people ask I will, but I am strongly against using Planet Busters under any conceiveable circumstances (our survival will not depend on using PBs).

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Considering the fact that most of the other factions ahve been either refusing to talk with us at all or demanding ridiculous sums for peace, I was using 'give in' in the context of 'actually agree to peace'.

In that case we differ little, except with regards to Deirdre it seems. However on that the people have spoken, so the debate is of little use (although interesting)

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I hsve no intention whatsoever of using conventional missiles, as they are a huge waste of resources - one could get far more out of building a chopper or two for the same price.

I disagree. Sometimes, it is worth spending that amount to take our an enemy unit. They are considerably more powerful than most copters, and so can take our an AAA troop that maybe a copter couldn't. I use them very sparingly, but they can be useful.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Personally, I would argue that it would be better to put developemnt plans for most occupied bases on hold at elast until the end of the war; if we decide that they aren't worth keeping, we may decide to simply hand them back once peace has been concluded, assuming a palatable fate would await them once we did (i.e. no handing them back to undemocratic states).

I disagree on this. Firstly, in RP terms, humanitarian aid is important as soon as possible. In game terms this is represented by the usualy lack of food when you take a place over. I think helping captured cities to develop is very important, and handing them back can lead to opposing bases in positions that can launch attacks on us. I do that sparingly. Most bases can be useful to us IMHO, and reconstruction is very important to me.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
And prolonged seiges will not occur. If a base is demonstrating strong resistance, we simply take out their air defences using probes and flatten their garrison with choppers. The likelihood of serious losses is miniscule.

Exactly, although if a probe isn't in a handly place, conventional missiles can do wonders.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I have no intention of committing atrocities against anyone, and I don't intend to commit hostile probe actions against our allies. However, I would argue that if need be, we would be justified in launching actions against factions which were de facto enemies without being at war, and blaming it on another faction if necessary.

I would have qualms about doing that, but if absolutely necessary I will bow to public will. Who is a 'de facto enemy'? If we are not at war, we are not enemies IMO. If there is someone we are not at war with, some covert acts could be sanctioned, but let them declare war, it hurts us least and we should not follow a policy of first strike. If we don't strike, they may not strike, and war is averted.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
As to the issue of targetting civilian facilities - while it is often pointless and counterproductive, there are times when even shutting down civilian facilities may be a good idea. The elimination of an enemy Robotic Assembly Plant or Rec commons can be an invaluable help to the miltiary, by reducing production and stirring up rebellion respectively.

Robotic assembly plant possibly, but Children's creches, tree farms, etc. should not be destroyed. I will poll for it, but am against it.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Thing is, though, the intelligence side of things is not what this is mainly about - probe teams are either a seperate area entirely, or a subdivision of the military, depending on the situation. Being good at managing probes doesn't mean you would be a good DPO (although, of course, it would help, and is much better than being bad at managing probes)

Well, military ability might be better, but it is still an amalgumation, and intelligence is still a major part of it.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I would have thought that went without saying.

As would I, until the fiasco about peace Yang without a mandate earlier.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I was DPO in Term I, before you showed up.

Thank you for clarifying, I just noticed it was not in your sig

[GeneralTacticus]

I disagree. Sometimes, it is worth spending that amount to take our an enemy unit. They are considerably more powerful than most copters, and so can take our an AAA troop that maybe a copter couldn't. I use them very sparingly, but they can be useful.

Can you give an example of a case in which a missile would take out a unit a chopper couldn't? Pretty much the worst-case scenario would be a unti with a Stasis Field using AAA, when it probably would be better to use a missile; but, OTOH, we'll still be miles ahead of the AI tech-wise by the end. A missile is only marginally cheaper than a copter, and it's a one-use weapon, whereas (as has been seen) choppers have the ability to destroy vast nubmers of units very fast.

I disagree on this. Firstly, in RP terms, humanitarian aid is important as soon as possible. In game terms this is represented by the usualy lack of food when you take a place over. I think helping captured cities to develop is very important, and handing them back can lead to opposing bases in positions that can launch attacks on us. I do that sparingly. Most bases can be useful to us IMHO, and reconstruction is very important to me.

I'm not talking about letting people in the bases starve; I'm talking about investing large amounts of energy into rebuilding the base when we may never get a return on our investment.

As for handing bases back - given that the abses will likely be on other continents, we don't really have to worry about giving the enemy positions from which to strike at us, especially when we're going to be either leaving that continent (and hence not having to worry), or else maintaining enough troops there that it won't matter if they strike.

Exactly, although if a probe isn't in a handly place, conventional missiles can do wonders.

This is only likely to occur if the local garrison is very strong. Even with air defences in place, our choppers now will still be able to win (even assuming AAA & AC, with silksteel, they still have better than even attack odds, and they have Fusion Reactors).

I would have qualms about doing that, but if absolutely necessary I will bow to public will. Who is a 'de facto enemy'? If we are not at war, we are not enemies IMO.

A 'de facto enemy' is someone with whom we have very bad relations (at Seething), no permanent peace treaty, and who has ideological disputes with us that will likely drive them into war anyway.

Robotic assembly plant possibly, but Children's creches, tree farms, etc. should not be destroyed. I will poll for it, but am against it.

It would have to depend on the situation.

Well, military ability might be better, but it is still an amalgumation, and intelligence is still a major part of it.

Well, not really; probes are useful to our strategy, but we could do without them most of the time. A signifcant part, yes, but not a very major one.

As would I, until the fiasco about peace Yang without a mandate earlier.

Which had nothing to do with the DPO.

Thank you for clarifying, I just noticed it was not in your sig

It is now

[GeneralTacticus]

Oh, and one other issue that hasn't been mentioned - that of mindworms. I intend to build up a strong force of Empath units for use agains tthem, and use them to hunt worms withint he fungal fields. Once we have the Pholus Mutagen and the Dream Twister, this should be very easy, and will provide us with a substantial new source of income, as wlel as a strong and battle-hardened force for defence against fungal blooms.

[Drogue]

Thanks to all the voted for me. Next week (after turnchat) I will have some military p-lans for you to vote on, and will have resurrected the Command Nexus to discuss how best to wage war and peaxce in the current climate.

Congrats to GT too, a more than worthy opponent.